u/Justarandomfan99

1. What's injeel in quran? Is it directly revealed book to jesus by God? Why does quran uses the same exact word that always only defined the apostles' reports about Jesus' teachings instead of his own written word? Why quran uses the same word to refer to the scripture that christians supposedly had at the time of Muhamad and urges them to apply the gospel (not just "parts of it") and that quran is a confirmation of the gospel THAT THEY HAD IN THEIR HAND not just "parts of it" ? Why urge them to apply corrupted books ? Why claim that it confirms corrupted books if the books christians at time of muhamad were already corrupted?

2. Quran never anywhere says the bible was textually corrupte. Either it mentions oral misinterpretation or vaguely accuses some to "distort words from their place" which could easily make sense with misinterpretation than texual corruption.

3. The closest nod to "textual corruption" is this verse:

"So woe to those who distort the Scripture with their own hands then say, “This is from Allah”—seeking a fleeting gain! So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they have earned."

Notice how the verse doesn't mention the bible at all but vaguely mentions "a book"? It obviously can't refer to the bible since quran urges the chrsitians and jews to apply the bible, and that quran is a confirmation of what they already have in their hand. So it most likely refers to other apocryphal books passed off as divine revelations.

4. All of this indicates the author of quran believed the bible (torah/gospel) was a divine revelation preserved at the time , not "corrupted". This obviously raises the problems why the quran contradicts the bible in so many crucial points like trinity.

5. Nowhere does quran says it "corrects" the previous scriptures or serves as "criterion" to distinguish falsehood from truth. Instead, it says quran was sent to the christians and jews to confirm their scriptures AND "reveal what they hidden" from their scriptures. "Muhayminan" doesn't specifically means "criterion" but primarily means guardian, preserver, confirmer. And the full verse heavily implies it:

“And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a guardian/overseer (muhayminan) over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each among you We have prescribed a law and a clear way. If Allah had willed, He would have made you one community, but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so compete with one another in good deeds. To Allah is your return all together, and He will then inform you concerning that over which you used to differ"

Here it clearly states that Quran confirms the bible, that those different scriptures were given intentionally to each Abrahamic community as a test so they would "compete with each other in good deeds". The framing clearly positive towards the bible here, which supports that muhayminan primarily means here "guardian" of the previous scriptures since quran ensures their "truth"

6. The easiest way to resolve it is to admit quran is man made and that Muhamad simply misunderstood the gospel since he has never read it directly but only heard the biblical stories circulating around orally in Arabian peninsula. So he assumed the gospel was a divine revelation just like the torah and that it agreed fully with the quran. Hence why not a single mention or distinction between the "original gospel" Jesus supposedly received and the four gospels of the apostles.

​

You may know that Islam makes the strongest claim of all in its main scripture, i.e. that it's a direct word of God and that as such, Quran can't have any error and if there's , the scholars must find a workaround it without questioning the preservation of the text. This for example, distinguish it from Christianity, that does allow for some more flexibility since the bible isn't believed to be direct word of God but "inspired by God" but written by humans (e.g. apostles).

Now that this obviously opened a can of worms. If Quran theologically can't contain any mistakes, then every mistake is existential for the doctrine of this religion. One of most studied and debated cases is probably the case of Quran confusion about Mary's family. The verses in question are:

Qur'an 19:28:

“O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste"

"Qur'an 3:35–36:

“When the wife of ‘Imran said, ‘My Lord, I dedicate what is in my womb to You…’

And when she delivered her, she said, ‘My Lord, I have delivered a female’… and she named her Mary"

Now you probably already see the issue here. Mary never had a brother named Aaron, neither was her father named Imran in traditional accounts (which quran clearly frames as her biological farher since his wife was pregnant with Mary) but Joachim. But there was a woman who shared the same name as Mary in arabic (Maryam) that existed thosand year before Mary, Miriam who had brothers named Aaron, Moses AND a father named Amran. With the biblical stories circulating around in the Arabian peninsula, it's very likely that Muhamad confused the genealogy of two biblical women with similar names. And it was absurd even for him to also claim Mary is also sister of Moses, he obviously didn't think they lived simultaneously but he did confuse the genealogy of the two "Maryams" . That's the historical consensus.

Now muslims are obviously not happy with this conclusion since in their indoctrination, Quran can't be wrong regardless of what it says, so the job of muslims/their scholars is to find a workaround without admitting the error, so the premise itself is flawed, circular, fallacious, whatever you call it.

So they argue, that "Imran" here is not the biblical Amran, father of Miriam but another man who happened to have the same name as Miriam's father even if no christian source ever support that his father was named Imran. As for Aaron and here where it gets funny, "sister of Aaron" isn't literal. It is a "symbolical connection" as Elizabeth, a "relative" of Mary was from "Aaron priestly line" . This is extremely far fetched connection, for one, only Elizabeth (whose connection with Mary remains ambiguous) was connected to Aaron in the "priestly line" and she was explicitly called one of his "daughers", NOT his sister. So why does Quran specifically calls Mary's Aaron's sister instead of his "daughter"? Not to mention that neither Christianity or judaism used the "sibling" title this way. Direct or symbolic descedants were called "daughers/sons/children", NOT siblings. There's no tradition that uses sibling title in such way. "Brother/Sibling" title is used to refer to either biological/adoptive siblings or members of the believing community but not a single verse uses "sister/brother" title to refer to direct or symbolic descendants as the term used for it is "children".

Now there's another problem, why of all prophets that existed, Quran specifically connected Mary with a figure that coincidentally also had a sister with this exact same name and a father of exact same name, especially that this term was almost never used in this way? Don't you see how far reaching this reasoning is? Mary ( Maryam) and Miriam (Maryam) had a father of similar name? Well those are two different Imrans! Mary is called the sister of Aaron, who was also coincidentally the son of an Imran and had a sister named Miriam? Well the names similarities is a pure coincidence and its a symbolical connection to Aaron even if no christian tradition ever referred to Mary as a "sister" of Aaron symbolically. Don't you see the ridiculous amount of mental gymnastics they do to get around and preserve the "authenticity" of quran and islamic doctrine? It's not a good faith argument at this point but a desperate attempt to preserve Islamic core doctrine as the entire doctrine collapses the minute they admit it was an error. That's why precisely Islamic doctrine of divine preservation is so shaky and fragile as it can't admit error without questioning the divine origin of Quran itself. And that's why its the most embarrassing issue for Islam.

EDIT: So other verses link Aaron to Moses, sure. That's a good argument. But notice how the very first chronological mention of Aaron was in 19:28? And coincidentally, he's placed in right chronology right after it. Muhamad learned more about Aaron after writing/narrating this verse, thus placed him correctly